Hi Christian—thanks for your really thoughtful questions!

You ask what I mean that workers cannot opt out of the system when they can simply work for a different employer they prefer. My argument is that generally workers can leave any given employer but that workers considered as a group are unfree to not sell their labor to someone who owns productive resources. Regardless of who you sell your labor to, that is the only option most people have available to them. I would perhaps shape my argument here a bit differently than I did a couple of years ago: specifically, the thing at issue is the relationship of power between workers and employers in which the scale is structurally tipped toward employers and where most workers have no option other than to do the will of one employer or another.

As to your second question—yes, the profit is after paying wages. By “extra” I mean precisely the part of the revenue that accrues to the owner of the productive resources over and above the entire cost of production, including the cost of labor. The question from the perspective of distributive justice may be this: what is the justification for distributing that portion of the returns to production to the owner of the productive resources and not to the workers? Here it can be helpful to think about “owner of productive resources” and “worker” as roles rather than individuals since in many smaller enterprises the owner also contributes to the labor. It is nevertheless in their capacity as owner that they get to decide what to do with the profits, however. That’s true whether they contribute lots of labor or none at all. No amount of labor in creation of the product gives you a say in what’s done with the surplus.

So your point is well taken—profit is used for all sorts of things and doesn’t just line the pockets of the owners. But the crucial thing is this: those who own are the only ones who may have a say in what’s done with that extra. It may be that virtuous people like your friend who has that animation studio make wise decisions that keep people employed, and this is what the employees may have wanted done with the surplus. But another owner, as you admit, may have pocketed the profits or frittered them away on crypto investments. The point is not what any individual chose to do with the profit, it’s the question of whether it makes sense that the profit flows to owners to do with it as they choose.

This is all much clearer in larger, joint stock enterprises where ownership is completely disconnected from labor. Even the labor of management is hired out. All owners do is have a record that notes they hold so many shares in such and such a firm. Why do we entitle those people to an income from production they do not actually participate in?

I would ultimately say it’s essentially impossible to say who deserves precisely what share of the fruits of production based on their exact contribution, and it’s certainly impossible to justify the present distribution from production based on some concept of deserving. It seems much better to structure the economy with more explicit principles of justice, and that has led me to the sort of political economy broadly espoused here.

Please don’t hesitate to ask more questions, I really appreciate the dialogue!

Dawson